The Water Framework Directive and Agricultural Diffuse Pollution: Fighting a Running Battle?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- First, the design of the Directive “should provide a basis for a continued dialogue and for the development of strategies towards a further integration of policy areas” (emphasis added). To what extent has the WFD succeeded in creating a more holistic, encompassing toolbox for ecosystem-based management and implementation? Do its structures make better alignment of different relevant policy fields possible, i.e., regarding water and agricultural policies?
- Second, the Directive stipulates that “environmental damage should, as a priority, be rectified at source” (emphasis added). Identifying the sources of pollution and their costs is pivotal to help realise the principle that ‘the polluter should pay.’ This raises questions on the relationship between source-oriented and effect-oriented measures in relation to agriculture’s impact on the water quality.
- Third, the directive stipulates that in developing policies “the Community is to take account of available scientific and technical data.” They are to develop monitoring and assessment systems that provide a “systematic and comparable basis for Member States to develop programmes of measures aimed at achieving the objectives established under this Directive” (article 36, 2000/60/EC). In decision-making with that knowledge, the ‘precautionary principle’ is key, i.e., avoiding risks, in the absence of certainty. This issue raises the question to what extent knowledge-for-policy is accepted or contested in the context of dealing with diffuse pollution of water systems.
2. Water Framework Directive’s Principles in Practice: A Review
2.1. Fragmentation and the Distribution of Responsibilities and Competencies
2.2. Source-Oriented and Effect-Oriented Measures
2.3. Contested Knowledge-for-Policy
3. Different Modes of Governance and Policy Instruments
- Regulation refers to “measures taken by governmental units to influence people by means of formulated rules and directives, which mandate receivers to act in accordance with what is ordered in these rules and directives” [68]. Regulation instruments can involve enforcement and fines, detention or other punishments if the regulation is not observed.
- Economic instruments are described as instruments “involving the handing out or the taking away of material resources while the addressees are not obligated to take the measurements involved” [68]. Subsidies and grants are examples of this type of instrument.
- The information (or exhortation) instrument wants to discourage undesired behaviour and to encourage desired behaviour, mainly by providing understanding of the consequences of behaviour. Bemelmans-Videc et al. [68] define these policy instruments as “attempts at influencing people through the transfer of knowledge, the communication of reasoned argument, and persuasion” [68].
- Physical instruments are those instruments that aim to intervene in the possible behavioural options of farmers and their contractors [69]. Next to direct provisioning of services by the state, such as water purification via waste water treatment plants, these instruments enable or constrain particular practices of targeted populations. In the case of diffuse sources, these are, for example, the creation of new infrastructures, such as new sewage systems for glasshouses or washing places for pesticide sprayers, that intervene in possible behavioural options. Nudging, in which small adjustments of choice environments are made, might also be understood under this category.
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Voulvoulis, N.; Arpon, K.D.; Giakoumis, T. The EU Water Framework Directive: From great expectations to problems with implementation. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Page, B.; Kaika, M. The EU water framework directive: Part 2. Policy innovation and the shifting choreography of governance. Eur. Environ. 2003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liefferink, D.; Wiering, M.; Uitenboogaart, Y. The EU Water Framework Directive: A multi-dimensional analysis of implementation and domestic impact. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 712–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiering, M.; Liefferink, D.; Kaufmann, M.; Kurstjens, N. The Implementation of the Water Framework Directive: A Focused Comparison of Governance Arrangements to Improve Water Quality; Radboud University: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Newig, J.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Sigel, K. The role of public participation in managing uncertainty in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Eur. Environ. 2005, 15, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uitenboogaart, Y.; Kempen, J.; Wiering, M.; van Rijswick, H. Dealing with Complexity and Policy Discretion, the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Five Member States; SDU Publishers: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Bourblanc, M.; Crabbé, A.; Liefferink, D.; Wiering, M. The marathon of the hare and the tortoise: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 1449–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kochskämper, E.; Challies, E.; Newig, J.; Jager, N.W. Participation for effective environmental governance? Evidence from Water Framework Directive implementation in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 737–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boeuf, B.; Fritsch, O. Studying the implementation of the water framework directive in Europe: A meta-analysis of 89 journal articles. Ecol. Soc. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jager, N.; Challies, E.; Kochskämper, E.; Newig, J.; Benson, D.; Blackstock, K.; Collins, K.; Ernst, A.; Evers, M.; Feichtinger, J.; et al. Transforming European Water Governance? Participation and River Basin Management under the EU Water Framework Directive in 13 Member States. Water 2016, 8, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobsen, B.H.; Anker, H.T.; Baaner, L. Implementing the water framework directive in Denmark – Lessons on agricultural measures from a legal and regulatory perspective. Land Use Policy 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, P.; Whalley, C.; Klancnik, K. European Waters: Assessment of Status and Pressures 2018; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Kastens, B.; Newig, J. The Water Framework Directive and agricultural nitrate pollution: Will great expectations in Brussels be dashed in Lower Saxony? Eur. Environ. 2007, 17, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strokal, M.; Ma, L.; Bai, Z.; Luan, S.; Kroeze, C.; Oenema, O.; Velthof, G.; Zhang, F. Alarming nutrient pollution of Chinese rivers as a result of agricultural transitions. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thornton, J.A.; Harding, W.R.; Dent, M.; Hart, R.C.; Lin, H.; Rast, C.L.; Rast, W.; Ryding, S.O.; Slawski, T.M. Eutrophication as a “wicked” problem. Lakes Reserv. Res. Manag. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craig, R.K.; Roberts, A. When Will Governments Regulate Nonpoint Source Pollution? A Comparative Perspective. Boston Coll. Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 2015, 42, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Patterson, J.J.; Smith, C.; Bellamy, J. Enabling and Enacting ‘Practical Action’ in Catchments: Responding to the ‘Wicked Problem’ of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Coastal Subtropical Australia. Environ. Manag. 2015, 55, 479–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- OECD. Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions—Policy Highlights; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document. Executive Summary of the Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Environmental Quality Standards Directive and Floods Directive; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Vermeulen, J.; Whiteoak, K.; Nicholls, G.; Gerber, F.; McAndrew, K.; Cherrier, V.; Cunningham, E.; Kirhensteine, I.; Wolters, H.; Verweij, W. Fitness Check Evaluation of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Final Evaluation Report; European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Eckerberg, K. Comparing the local use of environmental policy instruments in Nordic and Baltic countries-the issue of diffuse water pollution. Environ. Politics 1997, 6, 24–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Grinsven, H.; Ten Berge, H.; Dalgaard, T.; Fraters, B.; Durand, P.; Hart, A.; Hofman, G.; Jacobsen, B.H.; Lalor, S.T.; Lesschen, J.P. Management, regulation and environmental impacts of nitrogen fertilization in northwestern Europe under the Nitrates Directive: A benchmark study. Biogeosciences 2012, 9, 5143–5160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Graversgaard, M.; Hedelin, B.; Smith, L.; Gertz, F.; Højberg, A.L.; Langford, J.; Martinez, G.; Mostert, E.; Ptak, E.; Peterson, H. Opportunities and barriers for water co-governance—A critical analysis of seven cases of diffuse water pollution from agriculture in Europe, Australia and North America. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, R.; den Uyl, R.; Runhaar, H. Assessment of policy instruments for pesticide use reduction in Europe; Learning from a systematic literature review. Crop Prot. 2019, 126, 104929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bozzini, E. Pesticide Policy and Politics in the European Union: Regulatory Assessment, Implementation and Enforcement; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; ISBN 3-319-52736-3. [Google Scholar]
- Lefebvre, M.; Langrell, S.R.H.; Gomez-y-Paloma, S. Incentives and policies for integrated pest management in Europe: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baylis, K.; Peplow, S.; Rausser, G.; Simon, L. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 753–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ronchi, S.; Salata, S.; Arcidiacono, A.; Piroli, E.; Montanarella, L. Policy instruments for soil protection among the EU member states: A comparative analysis. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 763–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunningham, N.; Sinclair, D. Policy instrument choice and diffuse source pollution. J. Environ. Law 2005, 17, 51–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiering, M.; Liefferink, D.; Boezeman, D.; Kaufmann, M.; Crabbé, A.; Kurstjens, N. The Wicked Problem the Water Framework Directive Cannot Solve. The Governance Approach in Dealing with Pollution of Nutrients in Surface Water in the Netherlands, Flanders, Lower Saxony, Denmark and Ireland. Water 2020, 12, 1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, J.J.; Smith, C.; Bellamy, J. Understanding enabling capacities for managing the “wicked problem” of nonpoint source water pollution in catchments: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alahuhta, J.; Hokka, V.; Saarikoski, H.; Hellsten, S. Practical integration of river basin and land use planning: Lessons learned from two Finnish case studies. Geogr. J. 2010, 176, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, J.G. Spatial planning, water and the Water Framework Directive: Insights from theory and practice. Geogr. J. 2007, 173, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frederiksen, P.; Mäenpää, M.; Hokka, V. The Water Framework Directive: Spatial and institutional integration. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2008, 19, 100–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hovik, S. Integrated Water Quality Governance and Sectoral Responsibility: The EU Water Framework Directive’s Impact on Agricultural Sector Policies in Norway. Water 2019, 11, 2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Indset, M.; Stokke, K.B. Layering, administrative change and national paths to Europeanization: The case of the Water Framework Directive. Eur. Plan. Studies 2015, 23, 979–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wuijts, S.; Driessen, P.P.J.; Van Rijswick, H.F.M.W. Governance conditions for improving quality drinking water resources: The need for enhancing connectivity. Water Resour. Manag. 2018, 32, 1245–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moss, T. The governance of land use in river basins: Prospects for overcoming problems of institutional interplay with the EU Water Framework Directive. Land Use Policy 2004, 21, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junier, S.J.; Mostert, E. The implementation of the Water Framework Directive in The Netherlands: Does it promote integrated management? Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2012, 47, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, L.; Mackay, E.B.; Cardoso, A.C.; Baattrup-Pedersen, A.; Birk, S.; Blackstock, K.L.; Borics, G.; Borja, A.; Feld, C.K.; Ferreira, M.T. Protecting and restoring Europe’s waters: An analysis of the future development needs of the Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 658, 1228–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tippett, J. The value of combining a systems view of sustainability with a participatory protocol for ecologically informed design in river basins. Environ. Model. Softw. 2005, 20, 119–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, M. Data rich, information poor? Phytobenthos assessment and the Water Framework Directive. Eur. J. Phycol. 2013, 48, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nõges, T. Literature review on indicators and criteria applied in assessment of ecological status of lakes and rivers; Tartu University: Tartu, Estonia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Akhmouch, A. Water Governance in OECD Countries; OECD: Paris, France, 2011; ISBN 92-64-11928-0. [Google Scholar]
- Havekes, H.J.M.; Hofstra, M.; van der Kerk, A.; Teeuwen, B.; van Cleef, R.; Oosterloo, K. Building Blocks for Good Water Governance; Water Governance Centre (WGC): The Hague, The Netherlands, 2013; Available online: https://www.uvw.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Building-blocks-for-good-water-governance-2016.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2020).
- Hilderbrand, R.H.; Watts, A.C.; Randle, A.M. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol. Soc. 2005, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kail, J.; Wolter, C. Analysis and evaluation of large-scale river restoration planning in Germany to better link river research and management. River Res. Appl. 2011, 27, 985–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. The Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive: Actions Towards the ‘Good Status’ of EU Water and to Reduce Flood Risks. COM/120 Final 2015; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bouleau, G.; Pont, D. Did you say reference conditions? Ecological and socio-economic perspectives on the European Water Framework Directive. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 47, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Collins, A.L.; McGonigle, D.F. Monitoring and modelling diffuse pollution from agriculture for policy support: UK and European experience. Environ. Sci. Policy 2008, 11, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berbel, J.; Expósito, A. Economic challenges for the EU Water Framework Directive reform and implementation. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2018, 26, 20–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feuillette, S.; Levrel, H.; Boeuf, B.; Blanquart, S.; Gorin, O.; Monaco, G.; Penisson, B.; Robichon, S. The use of cost–benefit analysis in environmental policies: Some issues raised by the Water Framework Directive implementation in France. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 57, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S. Ordering knowledge, ordering society. In States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order; Jasanoff, S., Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 13–45. ISBN 0-415-33361-X. [Google Scholar]
- Boezeman, D.; de Coninck, H. Improving collaborative knowledge production for climate change mitigation: Lessons from EU Horizon 2020 experiences. Sustain. Earth 2018, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collins, A.L.; Price, J.P.N.; Zhang, Y.; Gooday, R.; Naden, P.S.; Skirvin, D. Assessing the potential impacts of a revised set of on-farm nutrient and sediment ‘basic’control measures for reducing agricultural diffuse pollution across England. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 1499–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Houck, O. Tales from a troubled marriage: Science and law in environmental policy. Science 2003, 302, 1926–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boezeman, D. Transforming Adaptation. Authoritative Knowledge for Climate Change Governance; Radboud University: Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, C.A. It’s not a war on science. Issues Sci. Technol. 2017, 33, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
- Glavan, M.; Železnikar, Š.; Velthof, G.; Boekhold, S.; Langaas, S.; Pintar, M. How to enhance the role of science in European Union policy making and implementation: The case of agricultural impacts on drinking water quality. Water 2019, 11, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thorsøe, M.H.; Graversgaard, M.; Noe, E. The challenge of legitimizing spatially differentiated regulation: Experiences from the implementation of the Danish Buffer zone act. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waterton, C.; Maberly, S.C.; Tsouvalis, J.; Watson, N.; Winfield, I.J.; Norton, L.R. Committing to place: The potential of open collaborations for trusted environmental governance. PLoS Biol. 2015, 13, e1002081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Quevauviller, P. Is IWRM achievable in practice? Attempts to break disciplinary and sectoral walls through a science-policy interfacing framework in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 2010, 24, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, N.; Deeming, H.; Treffny, R. Beyond Bureaucracy? Assessing Institutional Change in the Governance of Water in England. Water Altern. 2009, 2, 448–460. [Google Scholar]
- Fish, R.D.; Ioris, A.A.R.; Watson, N.M. Integrating water and agricultural management: Collaborative governance for a complex policy problem. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 5623–5630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Brugnach, M.; Özerol, G. Knowledge co-production and transdisciplinarity: Opening Pandora’s box. Water 2019, 11, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Blackstock, K.L.; Ingram, J.; Burton, R.; Brown, K.M.; Slee, B. Understanding and influencing behaviour change by farmers to improve water quality. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 5631–5638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Duncan, R. Rescaling knowledge and governance and enrolling the future in New Zealand: A co-production analysis of Canterbury’s water management reforms to regulate diffuse pollution. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2017, 30, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bemelmans-Videc, M.L.; Rist, R.C.; Vedung, E. Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1998; ISBN 0-7658-0546-4. [Google Scholar]
- Hood, C. Intellectual Obsolescence and Intellectual Makeovers: Reflections on the Tools of Government after Two Decades. Governance 2007, 20, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouldson, A.; Lopez-Gunn, E.; Van Alstine, J.; Rees, Y.; Davies, M.; Krishnarayan, V. New alternative and complementary environmental policy instruments and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Eur. Environ. 2008, 18, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drevno, A. Policy tools for agricultural nonpoint source water pollution control in the U.S. and E.U. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2016, 27, 106–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education and information initiatives |
Information campaigns (government or industry associations). |
Off-site training in environmental management. |
On-site training in environmental management (which may be subsidized) |
Information from suppliers, namely chemical companies producing pesticides and fertilizers. |
Soil, manure and water monitoring. |
Voluntary instruments |
Industry codes of practice. |
Environmental management standards. |
Voluntary agreements. |
Economic instruments |
Input taxes or levies on nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers, or pesticides (could be introduced on all inputs, or just those above a specific quota). |
Tradeable nutrient quotas (could be based on inputs or soil concentrations) or emissions trading (between non-point and point sources or non-point and non-point source). |
Subsidies for external audits and/or the adoption of best practices. |
Financial compensation for setting aside land, such as the creation of buffer strips or zones. |
Liability Rules, which guide compensation decisions when polluters are sued for damages. |
Regulatory instruments |
Compulsory adoption of environmental management plans. |
Placing a cap on polluting emissions. |
Controls on rates of fertilizer application. |
Banning environmentally risky farm practices (for example, not leaving buffer zones to water ways and clearing vegetation near water ways). |
Compulsory disposal methods of farm waste, particularly manure. |
Cross compliance provisions (depending on the extent of state government subsidies). |
Planning instruments |
Rezoning land to exclude agriculture. |
Land retirement contracts or covenants. |
Land management contracts or covenants. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wiering, M.; Boezeman, D.; Crabbé, A. The Water Framework Directive and Agricultural Diffuse Pollution: Fighting a Running Battle? Water 2020, 12, 1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051447
Wiering M, Boezeman D, Crabbé A. The Water Framework Directive and Agricultural Diffuse Pollution: Fighting a Running Battle? Water. 2020; 12(5):1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051447
Chicago/Turabian StyleWiering, Mark, Daan Boezeman, and Ann Crabbé. 2020. "The Water Framework Directive and Agricultural Diffuse Pollution: Fighting a Running Battle?" Water 12, no. 5: 1447. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051447